Beyond Twitter, and the odd private Facebook group, I find that almost a lot of the most useful things I hear come from email lists. So I’ve gone through my favourite lists to find my top five.
Lara O’Reilly’s CMO Today newsletter for the Wall Street Journal has recently become one of my favourite emails, combining the most important business news relevant to marketing with consistently superb puns.
Matt Muir’s weekly emails are an amusing mixture of rants, music and technology. But what makes them really stand out is his list, every week, of major social network changes. The number of Facebook announcements weekly alone is boggling – add in the other social networks and it’s astounding Matt keeps on top of them. But he does – and we all benefit.
Benedict Evans is about as knowledgeable as you get on the mobile industry – his collection of blogposts / podcasts, and links provides critical analysis of what’s going on – based on solid research and thinking, with a good dose of scepticism.
Azeem Azhar’s weekly round up of cutting edge technologies, especially focused on AI, is consistently fascinating. On top of a day job, being an FT columnist, he somehow has time to organise what are meant to be (I’ve never be able to go to one) excellent dinners with leading thinkers.
James is a former colleague and mate. But he’s also be writing this superb mix of geekery for a few years – rightly making him one of the most respected people in the UK Social industry. I have really no interest at all in half of his stuff – that’s about superheroes and stuff like that. But the other half mixes feminism, social media developments and technology rather brilliantly.
“The value of the top 10 corporations was $285tn (£215tn), beating the $280tn worth of the bottom 180 countries, which include Ireland, Indonesia, Israel, Colombia, Greece, South Africa, Iraq and Vietnam.”
Even, usually sensible, commentators like Scott Galloway use this comparison.
It’s a simple enough story. It goes something like this:
Trump’s data agency, Cambridge Analytica, gathered 5,000 data points on everyone. They used this to psychologically profile people, and deliver highly personalised advertising online. This exploited your character, fears and interests. And this swung the election for Trump.
Dig under the skin and this story has a few flaws. Using Cambridge Analytica’s own data, we can see that it probably didn’t swing the election.
To understand why, we need to kill a myth. Which is that Trump’s campaign knew how individuals behave and think in intimate detail.
This requires Trump’s campaign to have abundant data on millions of voters.
Good user numbers: Snapchat has 158m daily users – around 13% of Facebook’s level, reflecting that Snapchat is still heavily biased to younger users compared to more mainstream Facebook.
OK messaging numbers: 2.5bn messages are sent on Snapchat daily. This is about 12% of the total daily number of SMS sent, with 3% of the number of users. Snapchat is far behind Facebook though, which has over 60bn messages sent daily. In other words user-for-user Facebook / WhatsApp has 3 times as many messages sent as Snapchat. Snapchat would argue that a picture is much more engaging than a text message, and they’d have a point.
Good engagement: 60% of users create something daily by sending a Snap. Users visit Snapchat 18 times a day on average. These metrics look very like Facebook for stickiness.
Great time-spent numbers: 25-30 minutes per day is, again, similar to Facebook, and puts it way ahead of virtually all other platforms. This is crucial to monetization.
60% of advertising watched with the sound on – a good point of differentiation from Facebook (which is largely sound off). This argument, also used by YouTube, is compelling for advertisers looking for something comparable to traditional TV spots.
One big challenge is notable by not being mentioned. How does Snapchat expand beyond its core youth audience?